- Joined
- Aug 29, 2009
- Messages
- 8,647
- Reaction score
- 3,150
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Did you not read your own article?
A couple of hayseeds tried to play cop and gunned down an unarmed man. (unless you count the pocket knife)...
Thankfully, parts of Texas do seem to be catching up with the modern world. The jury did the right thing.
These yahoos should be in jail. Thanks to the NRA, idiots like this try live out some Western movie fantasy. Shoot-out at the white trash junk yard.
Did you read the article? i would hardly consider three knives as "unarmed."
This is the last time I'm going to say this:
I am challenging you to demonstrate to me using the facts that we have available and the statutes at issue that what these men did was not murder. No more appeals to authority. They are wearing thin, and I've already pointed out many, many times why this particular authority is not particularly useful.
I've provided you with the relevant statutes. Use the facts and the law to tell me why you think I'm wrong.
The challenge was to use the facts and the law to demonstrate why what these guys did was not murder. Are you going to address this or would you like to continue posturing?
One in the pocket, one taped to a leg. Sound like a homeless junkie trying to boost some parts to support a drug habit.
I guess when one scaled a fence to get away and the other hid in shed, the must of looked oh so very threatening...
Here's what you do:
1) Pick up the phone
2) Dial 911 - tell them there are two men trespassing on your property.
3) Go back to watching Fox News.
Again, it's not the old west. You don't ambush rustlers and string 'em up.
One in the pocket, one taped to a leg. Sound like a homeless junkie trying to boost some parts to support a drug habit.
I guess when one scaled a fence to get away and the other hid in shed, the must of looked oh so very threatening...
Here's what you do:
1) Pick up the phone
2) Dial 911 - tell them there are two men trespassing on your property.
3) Go back to watching Fox News.
Again, it's not the old west. You don't ambush rustlers and string 'em up.
Your opinion is irrelelvent in this matter. If they were murders they would be in prison right now. You seem to forget that murder is nothing more than a legal technicality and these men do not meet that legal definition.
Murder is a legal technicality! Nice.
This may not be the old west, but I have every right to defend myself, my family, and my property.
Wrongful-death =/= murder.
It's not even negligent manslaughter.
Your opinion is irrelelvent in this matter. If they were murders they would be in prison right now. You seem to forget that murder is nothing more than a legal technicality and these men do not meet that legal definition.
Actually you do not have the right to defend your property with lethal force.
Which completely undermines the concept of property rights. If you can't use lethal force, then all attempts to detain, stop, or run off would be burglars are empty bluffs.
Let me give you a hypothetical (And admittedly unlikely) scenario. I wake up in the middle of the night and hear strange sounds coming from my living room. I grab my gun and go to investigate. I see a man in my living room grabbing my TV. I pull me gun out and order him to stop. He looks at me, smirks and says, "You can't shoot me. That's murder," and then turns his back to me, picks up my TV and walks out the door.
What am I supposed to do? Just watch the guy go and then call the police so they can document the theft after the fact and I can hope they stumble onto the thief at some later date. (Because let's be honest a stolen TV isn't going to be a top priority case for many departments). Can I shoot him after he ignores my order to stop? Even though his back is to me? Can I tackle him and risk initiating a physical confrontation with a man who's physical abilities are unknown to me and who may or may not be armed himself?
It appears to have been the ulawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, i.e. murder in the first degree. It was, at minimum, second degree murder.
Which completely undermines the concept of property rights. If you can't use lethal force, then all attempts to detain, stop, or run off would be burglars are empty bluffs.
Let me give you a hypothetical (And admittedly unlikely) scenario. I wake up in the middle of the night and hear strange sounds coming from my living room. I grab my gun and go to investigate. I see a man in my living room grabbing my TV. I pull me gun out and order him to stop. He looks at me, smirks and says, "You can't shoot me. That's murder," and then turns his back to me, picks up my TV and walks out the door.
What am I supposed to do? Just watch the guy go and then call the police so they can document the theft after the fact and I can hope they stumble onto the thief at some later date. (Because let's be honest a stolen TV isn't going to be a top priority case for many departments). Can I shoot him after he ignores my order to stop? Even though his back is to me? Can I tackle him and risk initiating a physical confrontation with a man who's physical abilities are unknown to me and who may or may not be armed himself?
No, you can't shoot him if the only thing you're worried about is him taking your TV. We don't have the death penalty for property theft.
Castle Doctrine allows people to do that in various situations. So, think what you want, you aren't the court system and the court says otherwise.
yeah PA changed its Castle DOctrine not to long ago they removed the STUPID rule that you must retreat first before you use deadly force. Im glad they did.
Hell yeah good for them.
AdamT said:Yes, I still understand what you are saying, but what I think you are still missing is the purpose of punitive damages, which made up the bulk of the jury's award. Punitive damages are awarded to reform or deter's the defendant's conduct, where actual damages would not suffice to accomplish that goal. It is clear that McDonalds had no intention of changing its policy prior to the punitive damage award. A spokesman for McDonalds testified that they had done a cost benefit analysis and had determined that it was cheaper for them to seriously burn 70 of their customers a year than it was for them to make a common sense change to their coffee brewing policy. The company also lied about their reason for maintaining the policy. They claimed that they kept the coffee so hot because most of their customers didn't drink it until they reached their destinations, and they wanted it to still be hot when they arrived. But McDonald's own research showed that most of their customers actually drank the coffee in route. I don't know why you keep bringing up the lid, because it was not an issue in the case. The case was about the temperature of the coffee, which was established by a uniform policy throughout the company.
So once again, I don't think the jury's decision was irrational. McDonalds knew that the temperature they prescribed for their coffee could and WOULD cause approximately 70 people per year to suffer serious burns. In reality I'm sure the number is much higher, but that is the number who actually complained to McDonalds. It was apparent that McDonalds would not change it's policy if it only had to compensate the burn victims with relatively modest settlements, even though some were as high as $500,000. McDonalds made an economic decision to endanger its customers, and the jury made the decision to change McDonald's economic equation.
AdamT said:No, you can't shoot him if the only thing you're worried about is him taking your TV. We don't have the death penalty for property theft.
Watch me. I shoot him and I walk away scott-free. Nobody could hear him say that. When the police arrive, all they'll see is a man they believe is shaken up, putting on an Oscar-winning performance in front of a corpse with the intention of robbing and maybe killing him. Maybe I thought he had a weapon and began to pull it on me. Maybe he said a death threat to me.
When I walk out of court, watch me live it up at T.G.I. Fridays. Better luck next time, counsel.
Best part? One less piece of trash in the world today.
Watch me. I shoot him and I walk away scott-free. Nobody could hear him say that. When the police arrive, all they'll see is a man they believe is shaken up, putting on an Oscar-winning performance in front of a corpse with the intention of robbing and maybe killing him. Maybe I thought he had a weapon and began to pull it on me. Maybe he said a death threat to me.
When I walk out of court, watch me live it up at T.G.I. Fridays. Better luck next time, counsel.
Best part? One less piece of trash in the world today.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?